Fw: Teaching science/Christianity to middle schoolers

My computer is acting funny and said this message may not have gotten
through; sorry if it is a duplicate
Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
To: "John W Burgeson" <jwburgeson@juno.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: Teaching science/Christianity to middle schoolers

> Here is my response to the YEC argument that one has to observe an action
in
> nature in order for it to count as scientific knowlege. It will appear in
> the next essay on my web site, "Big Bang and the Universe Story"; it
should
> be up by mid April.
>
> How do scientists do science?

> "First, however, I need to say something generally about the way
scientists
> read and interpret the "Book of Nature," i.e., the universe and its
various
> parts, and challenge a false notion. A student enrolled in my "Science
and
> Faith" class once said to me that science cannot prove there was a Big
Bang,
> because no one was around to see it. He had been instructed in young
earth
> creationism (YEC) by the folks at Answers in Genesis, and had been taught
> that someone has to be able to observe something in nature for knowledge
of
> it to count as scientific, for there to be any factual basis for theories
of
> origins, including the origin and development of the universe. It is an
> argument set forth in YEC literature (Ham, cited in Ross, 99-100; Gish 40,
> cited in Miller 122) and public lectures: "Did you see it?" or "Were you
> there?" are common refrains in their presentations. I told the student,
> "That is a very limited and inadequate concept of scientific method," and
> went on explain that there are many things we cannot see in nature (e.g.,
> elementary particles or molecular bonds), but scientists have good reason
to
> conclude that they exist because they are able to observe their effects,
and
> the theories about them are testable.
>
> "It is an old notion perpetuated (though not practiced) by YEC that
science
> operates by gathering facts and then constructing a theory to account for
> them. This is the inductive or Baconian method, which still has its
> usefulness. But in fact, the scientific enterprise is far more
> sophisticated than that. Scientific advances sometimes result from a
> brilliant act of intuition or imagination that leads to a hypothesis or
> model that explains the way nature works. For example, Albert Einstein
> (1879-1955), taking the fact that the speed of light is constant, asked
> himself what the world would look like to someone riding on a beam of
light
> (Bronowski 247). His answer was formulated as Special Relativity.
Certain
> consequences were suggested by the formula, which, when confirmed,
> established it as a theory. This method is sometimes called
> hypothetical-deductive: from a hypothesis a set of observations are
deduced
> or predicted. When these observations are made, they test the hypothesis
> and either confirm or modify it (Miller 119). A well-tested hypothesis
> becomes a theory: not a "guess" but rather a formulation about nature that
> explains it better than competing hypotheses. A theory is not a final
> answer, for it may be falsified by further observations-in that respect
> science does not "prove" a theory, contrary to the popular notion
expressed
> by my student. But if the theory shares the qualities of (1) agreement
with
> data, (2) coherency, both internally and in agreement with other theories,
> (3) comprehensiveness, in that it ties together what had been previously
> disparate data, and (4) fertility, "in providing the framework for an
> ongoing research program," then scientists have very good reasons to stick
> with it (Barbour 34).
>
> "Some claim that there is a distinction between the so-called "hard"
> sciences (e.g., chemistry and physics) and the historical sciences (e.g.,
> evolutionary biology, cosmology or paleontology). In the former,
scientists
> observe or make repeatable experiments about natural events going on in
the
> present. Those who make this distinction assert that the historical
> sciences produce less reliable data and are less subject to the processes
of
> theory and hypothesis testing and confirmation. "Did you see it?" is one
of
> the cruder arguments put forth by advocates for this position. But the
> distinction is groundless. After all, the chemist does not see chemical
> bonds nor does the physicist see quarks; they also are observing the
effects
> of past events, however immediate, and inferring causes and theories to
> explain them. Furthermore, like the hard sciences the historical sciences
> use the hypothetical-deductive method; the difference is that the subjects
> of observation and testing are not controlled by the experimenter but by
> nature. It is the facticity of the past mentioned above [in the earlier
> part of the essay, not reproduced here] that enables the scientific
> investigator to test new observations in nature against expectations based
> on previous explanations. Creationists sometimes argue that evolution is
> not science because it cannot be subjected to repeatable experiments. It
is
> true that scientists cannot repeat the cosmological and evolutionary
> experiment that nature has undertaken. They are once and for all events.
> Yet hypotheses and theories about nature's history can still be tested and
> confirmed from new discoveries (e.g., of a new class of stars or a new
> species), and useful predictions can be made and tested. "Strict
> repeatability is thus not a criterion for the testing and revision of
> hypotheses." "Historical sciences are just as predictive and testable as
> the 'hard' sciences" (Miller 120-121).
>
> "The historical sciences are also forensic sciences, not only in that they
> reconstruct a past event but also in that they resemble detective work.
If
> someone had to be present and watch a murder take place in order for the
> killer to be convicted in court, only a few defendants would ever be found
> guilty. But those of you who watch the popular "CSI" series or "Cold Case
> Files" know that by using a variety of scientific instruments and tests
> forensic scientists can interpret the data from a crime scene accurately
> enough, even many years later, to build a convincing case against the
> perpetrator. The use of DNA testing to establish the guilt or innocence
of
> a suspect or convict is a prime example of good forensic science. In much
> the same way cosmologists, evolutionary biologists and historical
geologists
> patiently gather the facts nature offers and carefully examine and
interpret
> them using methodologies relevant to their particular sciences. The
> historical sciences, like the forensic, seek to establish a case that is
> "beyond a reasonable doubt" (Powell), but at the same time these
scientists
> expect to continue to deal with "unresolved problems, inconsistent
evidence,
> or unexplained phenomena" (Miller 121), for that is the way of any
science,
> whether hard or historical. The problems do not lead scientists to
abandon
> a theory; rather, they map out directions for further research. A core of
> well-established scientific certainties provides a solid base for theories
> and hypotheses that address the frontiers of scientific discovery. This
has
> been very much the case with the science of cosmology, as I hope to
> demonstrate below.
>
> "Ironically, the claim that a human observer is necessary is an awfully
weak
> reed upon which to build a case against Big Bang theory and the ancient
age
> of our universe. This is because of that other great discovery of the
> twentieth century: that when we look out into space we look back in time.
> As astrophysicist Hugh Ross, himself not an evolutionist but an old earth
> (i.e., old universe) creationist, points out, "Astronomers have only the
> past-they do not have the present" (Ross 100). It takes time for light to
> travel from stars to our planet-eight minutes from our sun, 4000 years
from
> the Crab Nebula, 2.9 million years from the Andromeda Galaxy. Thus, any
> event scientists observe when they look out into space has already
happened.
> In observing and interpreting it, they are telling the story of our
universe
> 's past. And thanks to light, that is, to the entire electromagnetic
> spectrum of both visible and invisible light, they are able to look out
> using their instruments and see back billions and billions of years in
time,
> close enough to the Big Bang itself to construct a convincing theory about
> it."
>
> The Miller reference is to:
> Miller, Keith B., "The Similarity of Theory Testing in the
Historical
> and 'Hard' Sciences," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54
(2002)
> 119-122.
> The Ross reference is to his _Creation and Time_.
>

> Bob Schneider
>
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 23 13:01:20 2004